PRACTICUM 11: Project Report
Introduction
Learning how to learn and knowing yourself better as a learner are skills and attributes that will facilitate life-long learning (Candy, Crebert and O’Leary, 1994). This project utilized Solo Taxonomy developed by Biggs and Collis (1982), together with the Hooked on Thinking Differentiated Curriculum Model developed by Pam Hook and Julie Mills to involve students in reflective, self-directed learning practices, using 'learning to learn' tools to develop creative thinking, develop and extend the metalanguage of learning and develop self-directing, reflective learning through determining ‘where to next steps’ in learning.
This project also explored how ICT interventions could be used to support, develop and demonstrate reflective practice and self-directed learning with a focus on using e- tools and developing e-Portfolios.
This paper shares the purpose and context, as well as the method involved, the results of this professional development study and summarises conclusions determined.
Context
This project was undertaken with a Year 4 class of students at a co-educational, non-denominational school from Pre-Prep to Year 12, with boarding facilities available from Year 7. The school is located in Townsville, Northern Queensland, Australia. The school is spread over two campuses, with Pre-Prep - Year 6 located on a separate campus to students in Years 7 – 12. The class was made up of twenty- five students, ranging in age from 7 years to 10 years old. There were thirteen girls and twelve boys in the class. Almost all of these students have attended the school since Pre-Prep. Three students were new to the school at the start of this year, all of them coming from out of state schools in Australia. One student has been at the school for two years and has English as a second language. Four students have learning support in class with a teacher aide. Three students have difficulty working in a group situation and in the development of positive relationships with their peers.
Ethics Category B approval was required for this project.
Method
For students to be thoughtfully involved in learning how to learn, they need to be involved in the planning, delivery and assessment of their own learning for it to become personalised and self-directed (Hook & Mills).
Students of all ages are able to answer questions around what they think learning is, how they know if they are learning and what to do next in their learning if guided and given the tools to support this kind of thinking and learning.
In this project, to help the students learn how to learn required developing a common understanding of the learning process, the language of learning and thinking, learning intentions and outcomes or success criteria and self and peer assessment rubrics. ICT interventions to support, develop and demonstrate reflective, self-directed learning practice, as well as the use of certain e- tools to support these processes, were implemented.
The method used for this project was based on the observational research method as the main technique for collecting data. The observational variables used for recording information and guiding and interpreting observations were descriptive, inferential and evaluative. Supporting data collection techniques involved informal interviews and guiding questions. Data collection tools were the use of eyes and other senses, written records in the form of a project diary (blog), student e-Portfolio reflections, the use of web 2.0 tools for sound recordings and guiding questions. Additional supporting material used to guide the project was based on the Hooked on Thinking Differentiated Curriculum Model that is built upon a framework of ‘learning to learn’, which focuses on a common language of learning and coding of learning experiences against the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes -SOLO Taxonomy (Hook and Mills). SOLO Taxonomy can be used across all learning areas in a differentiated learning programme and it empowers students to assess their learning and determine their next steps in the learning process.
The Differentiated Curriculum Model is a curriculum model that builds engagement in learning and provides the structures that support the active involvement of students in designing and building knowledge as well as assessing their own learning. Using this curriculum model, the students involved in this project were able to make decisions about why and what they were learning, and they could also reliably and validly determine how well they were learning and decide on what they needed to do next in the learning process to improve their learning. The Differentiated Curriculum Model made learning explicit and its design facilitated responsiveness to learning by providing structures that supported the development of knowledge building and learning experiences, measured against SOLO language of learning and SOLO coded self-assessment rubrics.
The method used for this project also adopted constructivist theory principles based on observation and a study about how people learn, where students, guided by the teacher, constructed their knowledge and their knowing. The method for this project was based on the constructivist view of learning that required a number of different teaching practices involving the encouragement of students to use active techniques to create more knowledge, reflect on and talk about what they were doing and discuss how their understanding of their thinking processes and learning was changing. Constructivist theory also involves the continuous reflection of learning experiences where the students find their ideas gaining in complexity and power, and they develop increasingly strong abilities to integrate new information. One of the main aims of this project was to encourage this learning and reflection process. As a constructivist teacher, methods used in this project incorporated tools such as thinking maps, rubrics and problem-solving and inquiry-based learning experiences, where the students had the opportunity to formulate and test their ideas, draw conclusions and inferences, assess their progress of the learning process, reflect on their learning and develop next steps to learning, in a collaborative learning environment. The method aimed to help the student transition from passive recipients of information to active participant in the learning process.
The method used to help students learn how to learn involved:
1. Understanding the learning process
2. Developing a common language of the learning process
3. Developing common tools and strategies to enhance the learning process
4. Implementation of these tools and strategies in the classroom
5. The intervention of ICT to reflective, self-directed learning practice.
Understanding the learning process involved developing a shared understanding of what learning is, what it should look like, sound like and feel like based on their thinking, using language that was in ‘student speak’, and the requirements of participating, contribution and action.
Developing a common language of the learning process involved the introduction of the five stages of thinking and ways of working identified in the Solo Taxonomy model of learning. This hierarchical model of learning made provision for the coding of a student’s thinking, working and understanding against pre-structural, unistructural, multistructural, relational and extended abstract categories. The model was easy to adopt because it was easily transferable across all curriculum areas and could represent student’s learning across a wide diversity of contexts, subjects and working tasks.
Visual recognition of the symbols for each category or stage, as well as the naming of each symbol, was introduced at the next stage of the project.
Using the visual symbols to represent levels of understanding, thinking and ways of working meant that coding of complexity of thinking, understanding and working could be undertaken by both the teacher and student. Developing a common language of learning also involved looking at the correlation and connections between ways of working, thinking and learning outcomes, for each stage in Solo Taxonomy. The kinds of working and thinking that would be completed at each stage was also shared and discussed. This provided a platform for talking about lower and higher order thinking and ways of working. Some of these included defining, describing, comparing, contrasting, sequencing, cause and effect, part and whole, predicting, generalising, evaluating, creating and reflecting.
Developing common tools and strategies to enhance the learning process involved the use of thinking maps, graphic organisers, the collaborative development of rubrics, teaching the 16 Habits of Mind, think pair and share strategies, the use if ICT interventions and Web 2.0 and e-tools.
Implementation of these tools and strategies in the classroom involved the sharing of learning intentions and success criteria, the use of rubrics to help students self assess their position in the learning process and then the individual or collaborative determining of WTN steps (Where to next) learning steps where, after feedback and feedforward, the students could use the rubric to make thoughtful decisions of what they could do next to improve on their learning. Implementation of these tools and strategies also involved giving students the time to go back and ‘have another go’. It also required the provision of time, so that this learning cycle could happen more than once in any one specific learning activity to reinforce reflective, self-directed learning practice.
The intervention of ICT to support reflective, self-directed learning practice involved the continuing development of e-Portfolios that had been established earlier on in the year together with exposure to different Web 2.0 applications and e-tools. These were used to support, develop and demonstrate present learning experiences, show the learning process, record reflection of learning and identify next learning steps.
Discussion
After extensive reading and examining different approaches to teaching practice that developed and supported reflective, self-directed learning practice, I decided to use the learning to learn design based on the Hooked on Thinking Differentiated Curriculum Model designed by Pam Hook and Julie Mills. My goal was to improve my practice as a teacher in designing and implementing a learning programme that would help my students to know what they were doing in the learning process and to help them become reflective, self-directed practitioners.
After making contact with Pam Hook regarding some guidelines for the implementation of this learning to learn design, I tried to follow the model as closely and carefully as possible.
I had to make some adjustments and tweak the model to a certain extent, adapting it to the availability of materials, my teaching style and to the student’s learning needs.
The initial stage of the project required that, together as a class, we establish a common understanding about what learning and the learning process was. This part of the project was introduced in Week 7 of Term 3. This was due to the fact that our class was assigned a fourth year final prac student at the start of Term 3. The project ran through to Week 6 of Term 4. I felt that an important first step in helping the students to understand themselves as learners was to establish a shared understanding of what learning was or what learning meant to them. The key issue for us as a class was that without a clear, shared, agreed upon understanding of the learning process and what learning was, the students would unlikely be able to be reflect on their learning, assess their progress and determine their next learning steps.
I asked the students to answer the following questions:
* What is learning?
* How do you know you are learning?
* How do you know how well you are learning?
* How do you know what to do next with your learning?
These questions come directly from the Hooked on Thinking website. file://localhost/(http/::hooked-on-thinking.wikispaces.com
When I thought about the first question, ‘What is learning?’ I realised that this was quite a difficult question to answer. I think that learning certainly means different things to different people. I found these questions challenged me in thinking about my beliefs on learning. The responses of the students were astounding, especially their responses to the first question. These were some of the responses to the first question:
” Learning is something that anybody can do. When people learn they get more knowledge” (B.P, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is when you are taught or teach yourself to do something. You can have a discussion about it or just talk to someone about it.” (C.K, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is something that teaches us ways to know different things” (R.I, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is working and thinking. You learn while your working” (A.N, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “ Learning is when you learn new things and the teacher teaches you how to do it” (J.B, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “I think learning is when you ... I am not sure” (D.P, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “I think learning is when a person or a group of people work together or alone to work something out or learn each others opinions” (B.M, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is being taught to do something that you don't know how to do. It teaches you right from wrong, maths, spelling, how to walk, how to watch a movie and everything else there is that you don't know” (E.F, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); ''I don't really know to be quite honest'' (C.C, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is where you learn something new. Every day you should learn at least 1 thing new” (O.B, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is a way to know things” (E.M, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “I think learning is something where you get lots of new ideas in your mind and use them” (B.R, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009).
The interesting thing to note after reviewing the student’s responses was that that there was a varied sense of what learning might be. I was shocked to find out that some students had no idea what learning was at all at this stage of the year. This was a bitter pill to swallow as this identified an important issue that I needed to address and attend to immediately. I realised that it is very easy to assume that all of the students that you are teaching have a clear understanding of the ‘what they are learning’ and ‘what they need to do be successful’. What was common about these responses was that I realised that my students did not really have any idea of how they knew they were learning and what they needed to do to improve their learning. It was also clear to me that at this stage, many of my students felt that learning was something that was ‘done to them’. The question that this magnified for me was how could the students in my class become life-long learners if they were not clear about what learning was?
Following up on this initial questionnaire, I presented the class with their statements of what learning was and this stimulated a great deal of discussion. From there we worked together as a group, brainstorming everything that encompassed learning. We then took all the individual statements and tried to come up with a definition of learning for 4M that was practical and something that the students could relate to and apply. This is taken from an e-Portfolio. It is the agreed collaborative statement of what learning would look like in 4M. “Our learning- We discussed what learning is and we all said some ideas about what learning is. We came up with some ideas and then we put these together and made a definition of what we think learning is. We said that anyone can learn something new and that there is an endless amount of resources that people can use to learn from. Overall we came up with that learning is taking in new knowledge and mixing it with what you already know and thinking about it to create new knowledge” (B.M, e-Portfolio reflection, 10th September, 2009).
The students developed posters for the classroom and used the Web2.0 tool Image Chef to present their thinking on learning. These were displayed in the classroom and students put these up on their e-portfolios.
During this class process I also completed an initial survey of where I sat regarding the explicit use of thinking maps and self-assessment rubrics based on the SOLO Taxonomy. As expected I rated poorly at this stage.
I realised that although I had know about thinking skills to support reflective practice, and I had referred to and talked about de Bono's 6 Thinking Hats and Costa's Habits of Mind, I had never systematically and explicitly taught thinking to support understanding and reflective practice. I had also never really examined the different thinking skills and related activities that correspond to lower and higher order thinking. I realised that when I talked about wanting my students to use higher order thinking that I was not that familiar with or explicit enough about the skills or the language of learning that I needed to teach and the practice activities that I needed to implement in order to help students apply higher order thinking. I was also challenged in thinking about how to move my students towards higher order thinking processes and to write this in a rubric that was student friendly and in ‘student speak, while at the same time, being applicable to the task at hand.
I decided to use the template examples provided on the Hooked-on-Thinking website for the planning of my Inquiry on Sustainable Friendship, in science on Physical and Chemical changes and English poetry writing. Using the template stretched my thinking and made me focus specifically on explicit learning experiences that supported the teaching of specific kinds of thinking. I also had to identify specific learning outcomes and determine learning intentions and success criteria for each lesson.
‘Introducing a common understanding of the learning process is necessary but not sufficient for students to know themselves as learners.’ (Hook and Mills). Using the Structured Overview of Learning Outcomes, SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982), provided the framework for developing a common understanding of the learning process, through the use of coding or symbols and stages used to cognitive learning outcomes.
SOLO Taxonomy also provided criteria that identified the increasing complexity of student performance required to show levels of thinking and understanding when mastering new learning (Biggs 1999, p.37).
Introduction to the symbols and the related levels of thinking were introduced to the students. These symbols and stages were context independent and therefore useful as a generic measure of understanding across different disciplines and learning contexts. I found that using SOLO could easily, and reliably identify ascending cognitive complexity in student learning outcomes. We revisited the SOLO Taxonomy symbols daily and talked about how these symbols and stages meshed with our shared understanding of the learning process. I was amazed at the way the students related the pictorial symbols to their own thinking structures. I tried to use the video recording setting on the digital camera to capture their discussion. This was very spontaneous and not too successful. This is an area of technology use that I need to improve on.
During the weeks that followed, the students were introduced to thinking map to assess their prior knowledge of concepts and as a formative self-assessment tool of their developing knowledge and understanding during the learning process. We also worked collaboratively on establishing rubrics based on SOLO Taxonomy. We discussed how our responses in our learning would indicate our level of thinking and knowledge and understanding of specific concepts. Although the students had been involved in some peer and self assessment against criteria this year, this was the first time that we had worked collaboratively, as class on establishing the criteria for rubrics measuring cognitive development against identified learning intentions and expected success criteria. The first rubrics created were time consuming. A critical aspect in developing the rubric was to make sure that there was full, agreed understanding of what the responses should read at each level of thinking, with justification of our choices. I think that it was also critical to keep the descriptor for each stage short, easy to understand and in student speak.
As the students became more confident using SOLO Taxonomy in all aspects of their learning, it became evident that they were increasingly confident in articulating their thinking about what they were doing in the learning process. Their language to support meta-cognition was developing and they had learning language that they could use when reflecting on and speaking about their learning. The students were also clearer about the links between the learning intentions, developing the supporting rubric and using the rubric to assess their level of success.
The next aspect introduced in the project, was using the rubrics to determine WTN or "Where To Next" or "What To Do Next " steps, to develop reflective, self-directed learning practice. This was a very exciting stage of the project because there were many "Ah ha " moments as the students really saw how the rubric helped them to determine what they could do or needed to do to improve their learning. It was evident that the rubric gave clear direction for most of the students on what they needed do to improve in their learning.
As I continued to read more about SOLO Taxonomy and the Differentiated Curriculum Model, and felt more confident working with the SOLO Taxonomy, I realised that this cognitive measure was multi-levelled. The rubrics that we were constructing could be for the range of thinking for a specific learning intention or for types of thinking, moving from lower order thinking strategies such as define and describe to higher order thinking. I also realized that the collaboratively constructed rubrics could be used to direct and extend our thinking for a specific learning intention, also including a range of difficulty within that learning intention. However, the rubrics that we were using were still very simple at this stage, so we decided as a class that we would add criteria to each cognitive stage and include an aspect of thinking, knowledge and understanding and skill development for our particular learning context. This was possible to do across a range of learning contexts. I was thrilled to observe that the students confidently started to direct discussion around the criteria choices for each of these inclusions in the rubric and they suggested additions and changes. They were beginning to show their understanding of what should be included in the process and product of their learning at each stage of thinking using SOLO Taxonomy and articulate this clearly.
As we developed detailed rubrics there were small group discussions around rubric criteria happening around the room, as students were self-assessing their work and asking their peers to check their self-assessment. The discussions revolved around where they sat on the rubric but also it was evident to me that the students were beginning to realise that they could be at different levels of the rubric for different success criteria. As the students used the rubrics to identify WTN, I found that some students wanted to rework on their existing task while other students wanted to use the feedforward or ‘where to next’ steps in a new task, but related context. In the project at this stage, I felt that in terms of my practice I was a facilitator but at the same time I was learning alongside the students in my class. The students realized that I had never used SOLO Taxonomy before and that my thinking was being challenged all the time. I felt that we had the beginnings of a professional learning community developing in our class.
With our focus on developing our knowledge of web 2.0, e-tools and e-Portfolios to support, develop and demonstrate reflective, self-directed learning practice, SOLO Taxonomy also identified ICT interventions that would support specific learning outcomes. I feel that this was an aspect of the project that could definitely be further developed in the future. The selection of e-tools available is enormous. The biggest inhibitor in developing a range of e-tools to support, develop and demonstrate reflective, self-directed learning was the blocking of frequently used e-tools by the school firewalls. Another determining factor in developing the student’s knowledge of and use of e-tools was the availability of computers and the issue of equitable use. However, in this project students were exposed to programmes like Image Chef, with all of the supporting applications. The students also developed an individual blog using Blogger. They used this for their e-Portfolio. During the project students learnt how to upload an image onto their blog, how to embed a PowerPoint presentation and how to embed a voice recording using the web 2.0 tool Audiopal. Some of the students were also exposed to making a QuickTime movie. They learnt how to upload these to either You Tube or Teacher Tube, with teacher supervision, and then learnt how to embed their movie into their blog. There were many other tools that I would have like to use, especially those that are used for audio capture eg. Voice thread, Audacity. These programmes are effective in capturing discussions and verbal reflection of thinking and learning.
During this project I also determined specific check points to assess the students thinking about their learning, and to revisit the initial questions about what learning was, how they knew they were learning and what they could do to improve their learning. As the students worked together on answering these questions it became evident to me, that on two occasions, a pair of boys in the class had no idea on how using SOLO Taxonomy, the HOT maps or the rubrics had helped them in their learning. I was able to speak to them and thank them for their honesty. These check points were good indicators for me because I knew who I needed to work with more closely as we progressed.
In the final week of the project, the students worked in small groups discussing how their exposure to SOLO Taxonomy and the Differentiated Curriculum Model had impacted on their learning. Many of the students recorded their thinking and discussion directly on their blogs. I provided the initial guiding questions for the students to reflect on during these discussions. I purposefully remained absent from the group discussion and was interested to read the unassisted reflective writings.
This is an example of a final blog entry: “I am glad that Mrs. Mitchell has taught us about Solo Taxonomy because:
* We now know how to improve our work.
* We know how to self assess our work.
* We know what to do to get to the next level of thinking”
(B.M, e-Portfolio reflection, 16th November, 2009).
Summary/Conclusion
It is certainly the case, that now and in the future, changes will need to be made, based on a new paradigm in the teaching and learning interaction if we are to take seriously the encouragement of life-long learning skills for our students (Candy et al, 1994, xii). Important skills that underpin the development of an orientation to life-long learning would appear to be independence in learning, knowing what to learn, the ability to reflect on performance and to act on reflection and being a realistic self-evaluator of their own learning (Jackie Lublin, p. 4).
This project has shown that through the implementation of SOLO Taxonomy and the Differentiated Learning Model, that reflective, self-directed learning practice can be developed in learners. Introducing a common language of learning based on SOLO Taxonomy, aligned with differentiated learning outcomes, learning experiences, and assessment of learning, enables students to know themselves as learners.
This project confirmed that the use of SOLO Taxonomy code, HOT maps and rubrics can support the development of creative thinking, the development and extension of the metalanguage of learning and developed self-directing, reflective learning practice as students use these tools to determine WTN (where to next learning steps).
This project provided the evidence required to show that the skills, thinking and actions that support reflective, self-directed learning practice can be taught to young students and that e-tools and the development of e-Portfolios can be effective in supporting, developing and demonstrating reflective, self-directed learning by providing a platform that supports ways of demonstrating the learning process and inclusion of learning that is based on sight, sound and motion.
Students do feel empowered when they are able to reflect on and direct their learning. This is evident in this final reflective statement made in the final week of the project: “I think that I am now much better at knowing what to do to improve my work. I also think that we talk about learning more in our class and I have never really done this before. I like it when Mrs. M tells us what we are learning and when we decide on what we have to do to be as successful as we can be. We have been using Solo Taxonomy. This has been very useful to us because we would never have been able to improve in our learning if we didn't know how to use the different symbols to show how we think or show what we know. Solo Taxonomy helps us to develop skills that are very useful in our learning like talking about what we have to do to show our level of thinking and also making rubrics together so that we know what to do. When we work with Mrs. M we make a rubric. Then after we have completed our work we discuss this with her and she talks to us about WTN next step. We then go and try again. We can have as many tries as we like to get the best result and until we are happy with our work. I am glad that Mrs Mitchell has taught us about Solo Taxonomy because it helps us to develop good skills that will help us throughout our whole time at school, helps us to improve our level of thinking and self asses our work.” (C.K, e-Portfolio blog entry, 16th November, 2009).
Implications for teaching and learning
Through the implementation of this project I believe that my practice in many ways has changed. I am now focused on specific learning intentions to a micro level. I have to be in, order for me to guide the collaborative development of rubrics. I have also slowed down the learning process because there is far more discussion about the learning process. Surprisingly, I have found that the quality of student work in all curriculum areas has improved and we get more done. I have found that my feedback, feedforward often happens on the spot and that during these discussions there is far more collaborative engagement in determining and identifying where to next steps to learning. During the implementation of this project I have observed absolute engagement of learning, especially in writing, from the most unlikely writers in my class and I have sensed empowerment. For me as a teacher using SOLO Taxonomy has been very user friendly and I can see clearly how this tool empowers students to accurately and easily assess their learning, and determine what to do to improve as they reflect and self-direct their learning. I also think that the collaborative construction of the rubric provides a clear understanding and ownership of the learning process for the students.
What has been most thought provoking for me is how I view learning and how much I have examined my own teaching practice in the area of reflection of learning and on why we need to reflect on our learning, being specific about knowing what is to be learned, and clearly identifying learning intentions and success criteria and providing feedback, but more importantly, feedforward. I think that in the past I have corrected students work and provide feedback but I have not given the students enough direction in terms of what they actually needed to do to improve their learning.
This project has convinced me that if we can teach students to become reflective about their own learning, we will have set them on the path to becoming life-long and self-aware learners.
References:
Biggs, J. B. and Collis, K. F. ( 1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning-The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press. Hawkins, W. J.
(1985).
Candy, P.C., Crebert, G. & O'Leary, J. (1994). Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education. National Board of Employment, Education and Training. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Cognitive processes in asTTle: The SOLO taxonomy. asTTle Technical Report #43, University of Auckland/Ministry of Education. Retrieved online November, 2009, from http://www.tki.org.nz/r/assessment/atol_online/ppt/solo-taxonomy.ppt
Collecting data through observation. Social research Fields. Retrieved online, November, 2009, from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Brown/lauratp.htm
Hook, P. & Mills, J. (2009). Hooked on Thinking. Retrieved online August, 2009, from http://hooked-on-thinking.com/
Lublin, J. (2003). Centre for Teaching and Learning- Good Practice in Teaching and Learning- Life-long learning and self-directed learning.
.
Introduction
Learning how to learn and knowing yourself better as a learner are skills and attributes that will facilitate life-long learning (Candy, Crebert and O’Leary, 1994). This project utilized Solo Taxonomy developed by Biggs and Collis (1982), together with the Hooked on Thinking Differentiated Curriculum Model developed by Pam Hook and Julie Mills to involve students in reflective, self-directed learning practices, using 'learning to learn' tools to develop creative thinking, develop and extend the metalanguage of learning and develop self-directing, reflective learning through determining ‘where to next steps’ in learning.
This project also explored how ICT interventions could be used to support, develop and demonstrate reflective practice and self-directed learning with a focus on using e- tools and developing e-Portfolios.
This paper shares the purpose and context, as well as the method involved, the results of this professional development study and summarises conclusions determined.
Context
This project was undertaken with a Year 4 class of students at a co-educational, non-denominational school from Pre-Prep to Year 12, with boarding facilities available from Year 7. The school is located in Townsville, Northern Queensland, Australia. The school is spread over two campuses, with Pre-Prep - Year 6 located on a separate campus to students in Years 7 – 12. The class was made up of twenty- five students, ranging in age from 7 years to 10 years old. There were thirteen girls and twelve boys in the class. Almost all of these students have attended the school since Pre-Prep. Three students were new to the school at the start of this year, all of them coming from out of state schools in Australia. One student has been at the school for two years and has English as a second language. Four students have learning support in class with a teacher aide. Three students have difficulty working in a group situation and in the development of positive relationships with their peers.
Ethics Category B approval was required for this project.
Method
For students to be thoughtfully involved in learning how to learn, they need to be involved in the planning, delivery and assessment of their own learning for it to become personalised and self-directed (Hook & Mills).
Students of all ages are able to answer questions around what they think learning is, how they know if they are learning and what to do next in their learning if guided and given the tools to support this kind of thinking and learning.
In this project, to help the students learn how to learn required developing a common understanding of the learning process, the language of learning and thinking, learning intentions and outcomes or success criteria and self and peer assessment rubrics. ICT interventions to support, develop and demonstrate reflective, self-directed learning practice, as well as the use of certain e- tools to support these processes, were implemented.
The method used for this project was based on the observational research method as the main technique for collecting data. The observational variables used for recording information and guiding and interpreting observations were descriptive, inferential and evaluative. Supporting data collection techniques involved informal interviews and guiding questions. Data collection tools were the use of eyes and other senses, written records in the form of a project diary (blog), student e-Portfolio reflections, the use of web 2.0 tools for sound recordings and guiding questions. Additional supporting material used to guide the project was based on the Hooked on Thinking Differentiated Curriculum Model that is built upon a framework of ‘learning to learn’, which focuses on a common language of learning and coding of learning experiences against the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes -SOLO Taxonomy (Hook and Mills). SOLO Taxonomy can be used across all learning areas in a differentiated learning programme and it empowers students to assess their learning and determine their next steps in the learning process.
The Differentiated Curriculum Model is a curriculum model that builds engagement in learning and provides the structures that support the active involvement of students in designing and building knowledge as well as assessing their own learning. Using this curriculum model, the students involved in this project were able to make decisions about why and what they were learning, and they could also reliably and validly determine how well they were learning and decide on what they needed to do next in the learning process to improve their learning. The Differentiated Curriculum Model made learning explicit and its design facilitated responsiveness to learning by providing structures that supported the development of knowledge building and learning experiences, measured against SOLO language of learning and SOLO coded self-assessment rubrics.
The method used for this project also adopted constructivist theory principles based on observation and a study about how people learn, where students, guided by the teacher, constructed their knowledge and their knowing. The method for this project was based on the constructivist view of learning that required a number of different teaching practices involving the encouragement of students to use active techniques to create more knowledge, reflect on and talk about what they were doing and discuss how their understanding of their thinking processes and learning was changing. Constructivist theory also involves the continuous reflection of learning experiences where the students find their ideas gaining in complexity and power, and they develop increasingly strong abilities to integrate new information. One of the main aims of this project was to encourage this learning and reflection process. As a constructivist teacher, methods used in this project incorporated tools such as thinking maps, rubrics and problem-solving and inquiry-based learning experiences, where the students had the opportunity to formulate and test their ideas, draw conclusions and inferences, assess their progress of the learning process, reflect on their learning and develop next steps to learning, in a collaborative learning environment. The method aimed to help the student transition from passive recipients of information to active participant in the learning process.
The method used to help students learn how to learn involved:
1. Understanding the learning process
2. Developing a common language of the learning process
3. Developing common tools and strategies to enhance the learning process
4. Implementation of these tools and strategies in the classroom
5. The intervention of ICT to reflective, self-directed learning practice.
Understanding the learning process involved developing a shared understanding of what learning is, what it should look like, sound like and feel like based on their thinking, using language that was in ‘student speak’, and the requirements of participating, contribution and action.
Developing a common language of the learning process involved the introduction of the five stages of thinking and ways of working identified in the Solo Taxonomy model of learning. This hierarchical model of learning made provision for the coding of a student’s thinking, working and understanding against pre-structural, unistructural, multistructural, relational and extended abstract categories. The model was easy to adopt because it was easily transferable across all curriculum areas and could represent student’s learning across a wide diversity of contexts, subjects and working tasks.
Visual recognition of the symbols for each category or stage, as well as the naming of each symbol, was introduced at the next stage of the project.
Using the visual symbols to represent levels of understanding, thinking and ways of working meant that coding of complexity of thinking, understanding and working could be undertaken by both the teacher and student. Developing a common language of learning also involved looking at the correlation and connections between ways of working, thinking and learning outcomes, for each stage in Solo Taxonomy. The kinds of working and thinking that would be completed at each stage was also shared and discussed. This provided a platform for talking about lower and higher order thinking and ways of working. Some of these included defining, describing, comparing, contrasting, sequencing, cause and effect, part and whole, predicting, generalising, evaluating, creating and reflecting.
Developing common tools and strategies to enhance the learning process involved the use of thinking maps, graphic organisers, the collaborative development of rubrics, teaching the 16 Habits of Mind, think pair and share strategies, the use if ICT interventions and Web 2.0 and e-tools.
Implementation of these tools and strategies in the classroom involved the sharing of learning intentions and success criteria, the use of rubrics to help students self assess their position in the learning process and then the individual or collaborative determining of WTN steps (Where to next) learning steps where, after feedback and feedforward, the students could use the rubric to make thoughtful decisions of what they could do next to improve on their learning. Implementation of these tools and strategies also involved giving students the time to go back and ‘have another go’. It also required the provision of time, so that this learning cycle could happen more than once in any one specific learning activity to reinforce reflective, self-directed learning practice.
The intervention of ICT to support reflective, self-directed learning practice involved the continuing development of e-Portfolios that had been established earlier on in the year together with exposure to different Web 2.0 applications and e-tools. These were used to support, develop and demonstrate present learning experiences, show the learning process, record reflection of learning and identify next learning steps.
Discussion
After extensive reading and examining different approaches to teaching practice that developed and supported reflective, self-directed learning practice, I decided to use the learning to learn design based on the Hooked on Thinking Differentiated Curriculum Model designed by Pam Hook and Julie Mills. My goal was to improve my practice as a teacher in designing and implementing a learning programme that would help my students to know what they were doing in the learning process and to help them become reflective, self-directed practitioners.
After making contact with Pam Hook regarding some guidelines for the implementation of this learning to learn design, I tried to follow the model as closely and carefully as possible.
I had to make some adjustments and tweak the model to a certain extent, adapting it to the availability of materials, my teaching style and to the student’s learning needs.
The initial stage of the project required that, together as a class, we establish a common understanding about what learning and the learning process was. This part of the project was introduced in Week 7 of Term 3. This was due to the fact that our class was assigned a fourth year final prac student at the start of Term 3. The project ran through to Week 6 of Term 4. I felt that an important first step in helping the students to understand themselves as learners was to establish a shared understanding of what learning was or what learning meant to them. The key issue for us as a class was that without a clear, shared, agreed upon understanding of the learning process and what learning was, the students would unlikely be able to be reflect on their learning, assess their progress and determine their next learning steps.
I asked the students to answer the following questions:
* What is learning?
* How do you know you are learning?
* How do you know how well you are learning?
* How do you know what to do next with your learning?
These questions come directly from the Hooked on Thinking website. file://localhost/(http/::hooked-on-thinking.wikispaces.com
When I thought about the first question, ‘What is learning?’ I realised that this was quite a difficult question to answer. I think that learning certainly means different things to different people. I found these questions challenged me in thinking about my beliefs on learning. The responses of the students were astounding, especially their responses to the first question. These were some of the responses to the first question:
” Learning is something that anybody can do. When people learn they get more knowledge” (B.P, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is when you are taught or teach yourself to do something. You can have a discussion about it or just talk to someone about it.” (C.K, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is something that teaches us ways to know different things” (R.I, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is working and thinking. You learn while your working” (A.N, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “ Learning is when you learn new things and the teacher teaches you how to do it” (J.B, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “I think learning is when you ... I am not sure” (D.P, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “I think learning is when a person or a group of people work together or alone to work something out or learn each others opinions” (B.M, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is being taught to do something that you don't know how to do. It teaches you right from wrong, maths, spelling, how to walk, how to watch a movie and everything else there is that you don't know” (E.F, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); ''I don't really know to be quite honest'' (C.C, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is where you learn something new. Every day you should learn at least 1 thing new” (O.B, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “Learning is a way to know things” (E.M, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009); “I think learning is something where you get lots of new ideas in your mind and use them” (B.R, questionnaire response, Week 7 Term 3, 2009).
The interesting thing to note after reviewing the student’s responses was that that there was a varied sense of what learning might be. I was shocked to find out that some students had no idea what learning was at all at this stage of the year. This was a bitter pill to swallow as this identified an important issue that I needed to address and attend to immediately. I realised that it is very easy to assume that all of the students that you are teaching have a clear understanding of the ‘what they are learning’ and ‘what they need to do be successful’. What was common about these responses was that I realised that my students did not really have any idea of how they knew they were learning and what they needed to do to improve their learning. It was also clear to me that at this stage, many of my students felt that learning was something that was ‘done to them’. The question that this magnified for me was how could the students in my class become life-long learners if they were not clear about what learning was?
Following up on this initial questionnaire, I presented the class with their statements of what learning was and this stimulated a great deal of discussion. From there we worked together as a group, brainstorming everything that encompassed learning. We then took all the individual statements and tried to come up with a definition of learning for 4M that was practical and something that the students could relate to and apply. This is taken from an e-Portfolio. It is the agreed collaborative statement of what learning would look like in 4M. “Our learning- We discussed what learning is and we all said some ideas about what learning is. We came up with some ideas and then we put these together and made a definition of what we think learning is. We said that anyone can learn something new and that there is an endless amount of resources that people can use to learn from. Overall we came up with that learning is taking in new knowledge and mixing it with what you already know and thinking about it to create new knowledge” (B.M, e-Portfolio reflection, 10th September, 2009).
The students developed posters for the classroom and used the Web2.0 tool Image Chef to present their thinking on learning. These were displayed in the classroom and students put these up on their e-portfolios.
During this class process I also completed an initial survey of where I sat regarding the explicit use of thinking maps and self-assessment rubrics based on the SOLO Taxonomy. As expected I rated poorly at this stage.
I realised that although I had know about thinking skills to support reflective practice, and I had referred to and talked about de Bono's 6 Thinking Hats and Costa's Habits of Mind, I had never systematically and explicitly taught thinking to support understanding and reflective practice. I had also never really examined the different thinking skills and related activities that correspond to lower and higher order thinking. I realised that when I talked about wanting my students to use higher order thinking that I was not that familiar with or explicit enough about the skills or the language of learning that I needed to teach and the practice activities that I needed to implement in order to help students apply higher order thinking. I was also challenged in thinking about how to move my students towards higher order thinking processes and to write this in a rubric that was student friendly and in ‘student speak, while at the same time, being applicable to the task at hand.
I decided to use the template examples provided on the Hooked-on-Thinking website for the planning of my Inquiry on Sustainable Friendship, in science on Physical and Chemical changes and English poetry writing. Using the template stretched my thinking and made me focus specifically on explicit learning experiences that supported the teaching of specific kinds of thinking. I also had to identify specific learning outcomes and determine learning intentions and success criteria for each lesson.
‘Introducing a common understanding of the learning process is necessary but not sufficient for students to know themselves as learners.’ (Hook and Mills). Using the Structured Overview of Learning Outcomes, SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982), provided the framework for developing a common understanding of the learning process, through the use of coding or symbols and stages used to cognitive learning outcomes.
SOLO Taxonomy also provided criteria that identified the increasing complexity of student performance required to show levels of thinking and understanding when mastering new learning (Biggs 1999, p.37).
Introduction to the symbols and the related levels of thinking were introduced to the students. These symbols and stages were context independent and therefore useful as a generic measure of understanding across different disciplines and learning contexts. I found that using SOLO could easily, and reliably identify ascending cognitive complexity in student learning outcomes. We revisited the SOLO Taxonomy symbols daily and talked about how these symbols and stages meshed with our shared understanding of the learning process. I was amazed at the way the students related the pictorial symbols to their own thinking structures. I tried to use the video recording setting on the digital camera to capture their discussion. This was very spontaneous and not too successful. This is an area of technology use that I need to improve on.
During the weeks that followed, the students were introduced to thinking map to assess their prior knowledge of concepts and as a formative self-assessment tool of their developing knowledge and understanding during the learning process. We also worked collaboratively on establishing rubrics based on SOLO Taxonomy. We discussed how our responses in our learning would indicate our level of thinking and knowledge and understanding of specific concepts. Although the students had been involved in some peer and self assessment against criteria this year, this was the first time that we had worked collaboratively, as class on establishing the criteria for rubrics measuring cognitive development against identified learning intentions and expected success criteria. The first rubrics created were time consuming. A critical aspect in developing the rubric was to make sure that there was full, agreed understanding of what the responses should read at each level of thinking, with justification of our choices. I think that it was also critical to keep the descriptor for each stage short, easy to understand and in student speak.
As the students became more confident using SOLO Taxonomy in all aspects of their learning, it became evident that they were increasingly confident in articulating their thinking about what they were doing in the learning process. Their language to support meta-cognition was developing and they had learning language that they could use when reflecting on and speaking about their learning. The students were also clearer about the links between the learning intentions, developing the supporting rubric and using the rubric to assess their level of success.
The next aspect introduced in the project, was using the rubrics to determine WTN or "Where To Next" or "What To Do Next " steps, to develop reflective, self-directed learning practice. This was a very exciting stage of the project because there were many "Ah ha " moments as the students really saw how the rubric helped them to determine what they could do or needed to do to improve their learning. It was evident that the rubric gave clear direction for most of the students on what they needed do to improve in their learning.
As I continued to read more about SOLO Taxonomy and the Differentiated Curriculum Model, and felt more confident working with the SOLO Taxonomy, I realised that this cognitive measure was multi-levelled. The rubrics that we were constructing could be for the range of thinking for a specific learning intention or for types of thinking, moving from lower order thinking strategies such as define and describe to higher order thinking. I also realized that the collaboratively constructed rubrics could be used to direct and extend our thinking for a specific learning intention, also including a range of difficulty within that learning intention. However, the rubrics that we were using were still very simple at this stage, so we decided as a class that we would add criteria to each cognitive stage and include an aspect of thinking, knowledge and understanding and skill development for our particular learning context. This was possible to do across a range of learning contexts. I was thrilled to observe that the students confidently started to direct discussion around the criteria choices for each of these inclusions in the rubric and they suggested additions and changes. They were beginning to show their understanding of what should be included in the process and product of their learning at each stage of thinking using SOLO Taxonomy and articulate this clearly.
As we developed detailed rubrics there were small group discussions around rubric criteria happening around the room, as students were self-assessing their work and asking their peers to check their self-assessment. The discussions revolved around where they sat on the rubric but also it was evident to me that the students were beginning to realise that they could be at different levels of the rubric for different success criteria. As the students used the rubrics to identify WTN, I found that some students wanted to rework on their existing task while other students wanted to use the feedforward or ‘where to next’ steps in a new task, but related context. In the project at this stage, I felt that in terms of my practice I was a facilitator but at the same time I was learning alongside the students in my class. The students realized that I had never used SOLO Taxonomy before and that my thinking was being challenged all the time. I felt that we had the beginnings of a professional learning community developing in our class.
With our focus on developing our knowledge of web 2.0, e-tools and e-Portfolios to support, develop and demonstrate reflective, self-directed learning practice, SOLO Taxonomy also identified ICT interventions that would support specific learning outcomes. I feel that this was an aspect of the project that could definitely be further developed in the future. The selection of e-tools available is enormous. The biggest inhibitor in developing a range of e-tools to support, develop and demonstrate reflective, self-directed learning was the blocking of frequently used e-tools by the school firewalls. Another determining factor in developing the student’s knowledge of and use of e-tools was the availability of computers and the issue of equitable use. However, in this project students were exposed to programmes like Image Chef, with all of the supporting applications. The students also developed an individual blog using Blogger. They used this for their e-Portfolio. During the project students learnt how to upload an image onto their blog, how to embed a PowerPoint presentation and how to embed a voice recording using the web 2.0 tool Audiopal. Some of the students were also exposed to making a QuickTime movie. They learnt how to upload these to either You Tube or Teacher Tube, with teacher supervision, and then learnt how to embed their movie into their blog. There were many other tools that I would have like to use, especially those that are used for audio capture eg. Voice thread, Audacity. These programmes are effective in capturing discussions and verbal reflection of thinking and learning.
During this project I also determined specific check points to assess the students thinking about their learning, and to revisit the initial questions about what learning was, how they knew they were learning and what they could do to improve their learning. As the students worked together on answering these questions it became evident to me, that on two occasions, a pair of boys in the class had no idea on how using SOLO Taxonomy, the HOT maps or the rubrics had helped them in their learning. I was able to speak to them and thank them for their honesty. These check points were good indicators for me because I knew who I needed to work with more closely as we progressed.
In the final week of the project, the students worked in small groups discussing how their exposure to SOLO Taxonomy and the Differentiated Curriculum Model had impacted on their learning. Many of the students recorded their thinking and discussion directly on their blogs. I provided the initial guiding questions for the students to reflect on during these discussions. I purposefully remained absent from the group discussion and was interested to read the unassisted reflective writings.
This is an example of a final blog entry: “I am glad that Mrs. Mitchell has taught us about Solo Taxonomy because:
* We now know how to improve our work.
* We know how to self assess our work.
* We know what to do to get to the next level of thinking”
(B.M, e-Portfolio reflection, 16th November, 2009).
Summary/Conclusion
It is certainly the case, that now and in the future, changes will need to be made, based on a new paradigm in the teaching and learning interaction if we are to take seriously the encouragement of life-long learning skills for our students (Candy et al, 1994, xii). Important skills that underpin the development of an orientation to life-long learning would appear to be independence in learning, knowing what to learn, the ability to reflect on performance and to act on reflection and being a realistic self-evaluator of their own learning (Jackie Lublin, p. 4).
This project has shown that through the implementation of SOLO Taxonomy and the Differentiated Learning Model, that reflective, self-directed learning practice can be developed in learners. Introducing a common language of learning based on SOLO Taxonomy, aligned with differentiated learning outcomes, learning experiences, and assessment of learning, enables students to know themselves as learners.
This project confirmed that the use of SOLO Taxonomy code, HOT maps and rubrics can support the development of creative thinking, the development and extension of the metalanguage of learning and developed self-directing, reflective learning practice as students use these tools to determine WTN (where to next learning steps).
This project provided the evidence required to show that the skills, thinking and actions that support reflective, self-directed learning practice can be taught to young students and that e-tools and the development of e-Portfolios can be effective in supporting, developing and demonstrating reflective, self-directed learning by providing a platform that supports ways of demonstrating the learning process and inclusion of learning that is based on sight, sound and motion.
Students do feel empowered when they are able to reflect on and direct their learning. This is evident in this final reflective statement made in the final week of the project: “I think that I am now much better at knowing what to do to improve my work. I also think that we talk about learning more in our class and I have never really done this before. I like it when Mrs. M tells us what we are learning and when we decide on what we have to do to be as successful as we can be. We have been using Solo Taxonomy. This has been very useful to us because we would never have been able to improve in our learning if we didn't know how to use the different symbols to show how we think or show what we know. Solo Taxonomy helps us to develop skills that are very useful in our learning like talking about what we have to do to show our level of thinking and also making rubrics together so that we know what to do. When we work with Mrs. M we make a rubric. Then after we have completed our work we discuss this with her and she talks to us about WTN next step. We then go and try again. We can have as many tries as we like to get the best result and until we are happy with our work. I am glad that Mrs Mitchell has taught us about Solo Taxonomy because it helps us to develop good skills that will help us throughout our whole time at school, helps us to improve our level of thinking and self asses our work.” (C.K, e-Portfolio blog entry, 16th November, 2009).
Implications for teaching and learning
Through the implementation of this project I believe that my practice in many ways has changed. I am now focused on specific learning intentions to a micro level. I have to be in, order for me to guide the collaborative development of rubrics. I have also slowed down the learning process because there is far more discussion about the learning process. Surprisingly, I have found that the quality of student work in all curriculum areas has improved and we get more done. I have found that my feedback, feedforward often happens on the spot and that during these discussions there is far more collaborative engagement in determining and identifying where to next steps to learning. During the implementation of this project I have observed absolute engagement of learning, especially in writing, from the most unlikely writers in my class and I have sensed empowerment. For me as a teacher using SOLO Taxonomy has been very user friendly and I can see clearly how this tool empowers students to accurately and easily assess their learning, and determine what to do to improve as they reflect and self-direct their learning. I also think that the collaborative construction of the rubric provides a clear understanding and ownership of the learning process for the students.
What has been most thought provoking for me is how I view learning and how much I have examined my own teaching practice in the area of reflection of learning and on why we need to reflect on our learning, being specific about knowing what is to be learned, and clearly identifying learning intentions and success criteria and providing feedback, but more importantly, feedforward. I think that in the past I have corrected students work and provide feedback but I have not given the students enough direction in terms of what they actually needed to do to improve their learning.
This project has convinced me that if we can teach students to become reflective about their own learning, we will have set them on the path to becoming life-long and self-aware learners.
References:
Biggs, J. B. and Collis, K. F. ( 1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning-The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press. Hawkins, W. J.
(1985).
Candy, P.C., Crebert, G. & O'Leary, J. (1994). Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education. National Board of Employment, Education and Training. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Cognitive processes in asTTle: The SOLO taxonomy. asTTle Technical Report #43, University of Auckland/Ministry of Education. Retrieved online November, 2009, from http://www.tki.org.nz/r/assessment/atol_online/ppt/solo-taxonomy.ppt
Collecting data through observation. Social research Fields. Retrieved online, November, 2009, from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Brown/lauratp.htm
Hook, P. & Mills, J. (2009). Hooked on Thinking. Retrieved online August, 2009, from http://hooked-on-thinking.com/
Lublin, J. (2003). Centre for Teaching and Learning- Good Practice in Teaching and Learning- Life-long learning and self-directed learning.
.